In Cut Off, Louisiana, where I grew up, people are generally disinterested in politics and don’t understand its procedures. Most want to be left alone.

So, it’s no wonder that a majority of the people in Cut Off won’t have a developed understanding of the impact of Judge Martin Feldman’s decision last week in Robicheaux v. Caldwell to uphold Louisiana’s gay marriage ban.

As you might guess, Cut Off is not what you would call “gay friendly.” My own high school principal had to be pressured by an American Civil Liberties Union lawsuit to allow a group of students to form a Gay-Straight Alliance club.

Coincidently, that same year, I came out to my family, and what my grandparents said will stay with me always. They said, “Tony, we’ve always known, and we’ve always loved you.”

It was an incredibly powerful moment, which showed me that, even in Cut Off, people are capable of compassion and understanding, and that inspires me still to extend others the same courtesy.

Unfortunately, Cut Off is not much different from Baton Rouge and certain judges on the federal district court, where Robicheaux v. Caldwell was decided.

Feldman — appointed by the illustrious former-President Reagan to the federal district court in Baton Rouge — was quoted by the New York Times with a tripartite defense of his ruling in Robicheaux v. Caldwell.

He argues with recycled logic that Louisiana has a compelling interest “in linking children to an intact family formed by their biological parents.” This is an interesting take, but is so full of holes it can’t be taken seriously.

This ruling cannot possibly be about the traditional parent-child marriage arrangement, because Feldman doesn’t address men and women who can’t have children, the elderly, and he makes no mention of adoption.

But this first point is based on the broader idea that states have the constitutional authority to regulate marriage, not the federal government or the courts — a classic state’s rights argument.

However, this dilemma was rightly decided in US v. Windsor and is not the issue at hand. The primary concern now is whether state governments are bound by the 14th amendment and its equal protection guarantees that are meant to protect LGBTQ couples from state-sponsored discrimination in marriage laws.

These state’s rights advocates, who believe that states have the authority to ignore federal law, are of the same ideological bent as segregationists were during the era of civil rights legislation and conveniently leave out certain parts of the Constitution that discredit their tired opinions. In America, this same Constitution orders the hierarchy of authority, not ignorant  judicial activists.

Feldman went even further in his intellectual misadventures. He questioned whether states should be required to recognize a marriage between  aunts and nephews.

What Feldman is arguing is both intellectually obtuse and absolutely insulting. To compare a crime, and near-universal taboo, with tangible genetic consequences to a lifestyle that has been widely accepted in various points in history is cowardly and represents a lack of understanding of the LGBTQ community.

All-in-all, 19 states have ended legal discrimination against LGBTQ couples and another 13 more have had their bans struck down, but have pending appeals.

Thanks, in no small part, to the socio-political maturation of millennial voters and their unprecedented acceptance of people different from themselves.